To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

2. It was stated that the Executive Board brought the charges as complainant, sheriff, judge and jury. The person
or persons who wrote this article certainly disqualified themselves as being saints. Saints don't lie. I will admit
that sometimes a saint-says things that are not necessarily true.butthey say so believing themto be the truth.But
the .persons responsible for this accusation, told this untruth "knowingly. They know that the accused were not
tried before the Executive Board. The Executive Board consists of only fourteen men and there were more than
nine-hundred ( 900 ) elders present and representing the General Council.
They also know that Bishop A. B. McEwen is Chairman of the Executive Board and that Bishop McEwen did not
preside over this session. The person who has been chairman of the General Council for many years presided.
It is -true that this person is a member of the Executive Board but 'his is not news. If these persons feel that the
Chairman of the General Council should not be a member of the Executive Board, why haven't they done something
about correcting it? I agree-that our church needs-some regulations, but "a house divided against itself cannot
stand." Why would people guising under the cloak of a saint willfully, maliciously and viciously without any regard for the truth and for the express purpose of deceiving the people say that the accused "were found guilty,
sentenced, and this sentence was ordered executed without granting the victims the right of appeal."
This statement was not made for the purpose it appears on the surface. But this statement was made to do exactly what it has done, to inadequately inform the people. From this statement, people are made to believe that
the accused has been denied the right to appeal to the General Assembly. The accused is not concerned about
appealing to a qualified General Assembly. This is evidenced by the fact that they would not qualify delegates ii»
their respective states and submit copies of said certification to the Office of the General Secretary. They want
to continue to pursue what I have repeatly described as mass psychology. They know that saints love each other
and that neither want to hurt the other. So it is true that if anybody with oratorical ability and a silver tongue
comes before a huge audience and ask them misleading questions:
Do you want to hear Bishop John Doe?
Do you love Bishop John Doe?
Isn't Bishop John Doe a great preacher?
Don't you feel that men who have suffered in the Church should be heard?
Do you believe the laborer is worthy of his hire?
Do you want a clean man for your leader?
The answer to all of these questions from the assembled audience would be:
YES! AMEN!
But when the individuals finished their amens and yesses, the heart of the matter would not be touched. Those
aforementioned are not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is WHO IS DULY ELECTED TO HAVE
GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE CHURCH? And the answer is: THE EXECUTIVE BOARD.
SENIOR BISHOP
May I comment briefly on the subject of the Senior Bishop. The person seeking the office of Senior Bishop with
all the privileges and powers that were granted our Founding Father, the late Bishop C. H. Mason, is one of the
persons who saw tp it by provisions of the Constitution that no one would ever be possessed with this power.
HOW DID THEY DO THIS? Because the age-old question of supremacy existed among them, each of them wanting
to be Bishop Mason's successor,-saw to it that the Constitution would provide that "TWO OR MORE MEN would
be elected by the General Assembly who shall hold office during good behavior and shall have general supervision of the Church." Bishop Mason knowing their contention and rivalry, never would appoint one of them as
his assistant.
Let us further explore the word "Senior Bishop." Wherever "Senior Bishop" is used in our Constitution, it is
speaking exclusively of the late Bishop C. H. Mason. The Constitution not only fails to provide for a Senior
Bishop, but the general practice of the Church fails to make such provision. Yes, we;can determine who is the
oldest or senior bishop now from* the point of service and who the second oldest bishop is. But what would happen
to the Church at the demise of these two persons if seniority were the prerequisite for leadership? There are no
statistics of the appointments of bishops kept in out files. Therefore, it would be impossible to determine the
senior status of our "would-be" senior bishops.
CIVIL LITIGATION S
Deceitful people strongly believe in the Scripture frequently quoted by the late Bishop C. H. Mason, "Dare any
of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?", when the shoe is
on the other foot. Let us take these cases involving our Church in their chronological order:
( 1)ALABAMA
The Executive Board was made a part of the complainants in this case. The Executive Board appointed Bishop
J. M. Bailey to preside over the Second Jurisdiction of Alabama. A church pastored by Elder John Key chose to
associate his church with the Second Jurisdiction. One of die deacons of the church and a few others apparently

Official Church of God in Christ newsletter, 1967. "Church of God in Christ/ 938 S. Mason St., Memphis, Tenn. 38102; from the office of general secretary; Official Church of God in Christ; March, 1969; Mason Temple; Memphis, Tenn. 38102", with photograph of church and members of the executive board listed on the left side -- p. [1].; Foreword, and a description of, "How the executive board came into existence", followed by a series of questions and answers concerning a problem involving "Bishop" Jones and the executive board of the Church of God in Christ. Includes various letters amongst the questions and answers, followed by an "Epitome" and a final letter" -- p. [2-24].; Back of pamphlet has a stamp on the bottom, "You may order from The Christian Goldmine; 87 Kight Circle, La Grange, GA 30240; Phone 706-885-0769; Rev. H. L. Jones" -- p. [26].

2. It was stated that the Executive Board brought the charges as complainant, sheriff, judge and jury. The person
or persons who wrote this article certainly disqualified themselves as being saints. Saints don't lie. I will admit
that sometimes a saint-says things that are not necessarily true.butthey say so believing themto be the truth.But
the .persons responsible for this accusation, told this untruth "knowingly. They know that the accused were not
tried before the Executive Board. The Executive Board consists of only fourteen men and there were more than
nine-hundred ( 900 ) elders present and representing the General Council.
They also know that Bishop A. B. McEwen is Chairman of the Executive Board and that Bishop McEwen did not
preside over this session. The person who has been chairman of the General Council for many years presided.
It is -true that this person is a member of the Executive Board but 'his is not news. If these persons feel that the
Chairman of the General Council should not be a member of the Executive Board, why haven't they done something
about correcting it? I agree-that our church needs-some regulations, but "a house divided against itself cannot
stand." Why would people guising under the cloak of a saint willfully, maliciously and viciously without any regard for the truth and for the express purpose of deceiving the people say that the accused "were found guilty,
sentenced, and this sentence was ordered executed without granting the victims the right of appeal."
This statement was not made for the purpose it appears on the surface. But this statement was made to do exactly what it has done, to inadequately inform the people. From this statement, people are made to believe that
the accused has been denied the right to appeal to the General Assembly. The accused is not concerned about
appealing to a qualified General Assembly. This is evidenced by the fact that they would not qualify delegates ii»
their respective states and submit copies of said certification to the Office of the General Secretary. They want
to continue to pursue what I have repeatly described as mass psychology. They know that saints love each other
and that neither want to hurt the other. So it is true that if anybody with oratorical ability and a silver tongue
comes before a huge audience and ask them misleading questions:
Do you want to hear Bishop John Doe?
Do you love Bishop John Doe?
Isn't Bishop John Doe a great preacher?
Don't you feel that men who have suffered in the Church should be heard?
Do you believe the laborer is worthy of his hire?
Do you want a clean man for your leader?
The answer to all of these questions from the assembled audience would be:
YES! AMEN!
But when the individuals finished their amens and yesses, the heart of the matter would not be touched. Those
aforementioned are not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is WHO IS DULY ELECTED TO HAVE
GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE CHURCH? And the answer is: THE EXECUTIVE BOARD.
SENIOR BISHOP
May I comment briefly on the subject of the Senior Bishop. The person seeking the office of Senior Bishop with
all the privileges and powers that were granted our Founding Father, the late Bishop C. H. Mason, is one of the
persons who saw tp it by provisions of the Constitution that no one would ever be possessed with this power.
HOW DID THEY DO THIS? Because the age-old question of supremacy existed among them, each of them wanting
to be Bishop Mason's successor,-saw to it that the Constitution would provide that "TWO OR MORE MEN would
be elected by the General Assembly who shall hold office during good behavior and shall have general supervision of the Church." Bishop Mason knowing their contention and rivalry, never would appoint one of them as
his assistant.
Let us further explore the word "Senior Bishop." Wherever "Senior Bishop" is used in our Constitution, it is
speaking exclusively of the late Bishop C. H. Mason. The Constitution not only fails to provide for a Senior
Bishop, but the general practice of the Church fails to make such provision. Yes, we;can determine who is the
oldest or senior bishop now from* the point of service and who the second oldest bishop is. But what would happen
to the Church at the demise of these two persons if seniority were the prerequisite for leadership? There are no
statistics of the appointments of bishops kept in out files. Therefore, it would be impossible to determine the
senior status of our "would-be" senior bishops.
CIVIL LITIGATION S
Deceitful people strongly believe in the Scripture frequently quoted by the late Bishop C. H. Mason, "Dare any
of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?", when the shoe is
on the other foot. Let us take these cases involving our Church in their chronological order:
( 1)ALABAMA
The Executive Board was made a part of the complainants in this case. The Executive Board appointed Bishop
J. M. Bailey to preside over the Second Jurisdiction of Alabama. A church pastored by Elder John Key chose to
associate his church with the Second Jurisdiction. One of die deacons of the church and a few others apparently